Talk:Valentine's Day/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Valentine's day in Hungary

My grandfather was an ethnic Magyar born on Valentine's day in Hungary (area is now part of Romania due to WWI) in 1904. His given name was Valent, which was modified to Valentine upon his immigration to the US of A. Barring a major coincidence, I'm inclined to think his name was purposely chosen. I'd assume that Hungary recognized Valentine's Day in one fashion or another in the 19th century and certainly in the 20th.

Hungarianfalcon (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New Roman Catholic line on Saint Valentine?

Interesting report on the BBC recently saying that "Britain's Roman Catholic Church is advising lovelorn singles to direct their 14 February requests for love to St Raphael, rather than St Valentine."

Is this a British thing? Has it been seen elsewhere? Should it be reflected in the article? - mpntod (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Valentinianism with Valentine's Day

I find the curious relationship between the data supplied and documented in the Wiki article regarding Valentinianism to match the Late Antiquity era origin of St. Valentine. I began research today and find no information in the Jpcatholic library web research. I have requested more access to research it further. There is an amazing match of time, location and topic between the two names, occupation/title and the origin of this modern celebration. I will be posting more information as discovered. I could not find any previous discussions, unless I am too new to this forum and protocols. Please inform me if other links exist already. HystericalFigure (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello? Valentine's Day is NOT a national holiday. I WORK on Valentine's Day. This is absolutely incorrect, embarrassing, and should be removed. (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

From Holiday: "A holiday is, in the English-speaking world, a day designated as having special significance for which individuals, a government, or a religious group have deemed that observation is warranted" --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not how a 'holiday' is defined at all (except perhaps on Wikip(a)edia). A holiday is a day off originated in religious festivals where work would be prohibited. I suspect by 'English-speaking world' you mean the USA, where 'holiday' is used for things like 'Happy holidays' which is meaningless in other English-speaking countries because no-one goes on holiday and few are on holiday for more than 2 or 3 days.

Well, since this is a Wikipedia article, we use Wikipedia conventions. Halloween is another example. --NeilN talk to me 07:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The article isn't saying V Day is a *national* holiday, it's just saying it is a holiday, i.e. the synonym for festival. — CIS (talk | stalk) 20:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

American Bias

It isn't 'commonly shortened to 'Valentine's' except in American English.

In the UK it's always been and still is used in its grammatically-correct form 'Valentine's day'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding something. It says "commonly shortened to Valentine's Day" (from Saint Valentine's Day). — CIS (talk | stalk) 19:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Holiday vs. Holy Day

It may be a Holy Day, but it is not a holiday for all and I think this should be clarified. Xzrox (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is both a religious holy day and a cultural holiday celebrated across the globe.--Cúchullain t/c 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone any evience that this is an actual holiday anywhere in the world? A celebration, yes, but a holiday? CS46 14:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Valentines day is not a holiday day by any form of the definition. It is not a holy day(just because it is named after a saint does not make it holy) it is not a day you are exempt from work, or on vacation. If it is anything it's a observance day (no different then Sweetest Day) ~ Jklin (T) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As a saint's feast day it is a holiday. It is also celebrated more informally as a holiday all over the world: from our page holiday: "Official or unofficial observances of religious/national/cultural/other significance..." V-day certainly qualifies.--Cúchullain t/c 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think OP was confused between national holidays, bank holidays and holiday celebrations. JayKeaton (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I offer the following for clarification: While "Catholics" are generally regarded as a member of the group called "Christian", the two groups are by no means synonymous. The part is never equal to the whole, but only a part. The article is in error, therefore, when it suggests this is holiday which can be attributed to the whole "Christian" group when it can not be so attributed; history, practice and theology point only to one part of the whole, that is, the "Catholics". The author of this article would do well, then, not to blame the Baptists or Methodists, for example, for the childish suggestion that this "Hallmark Holiday" is actually important to our culture and lives, i.e., holy, and not use the "Christian" religion as support. As a member of the whole group called "Christian" yet not in the part called "Catholic", and therefore generally uninterested to anything attributed to these "saints", I am a little ticked off that my heritage is grouped so carelessly with just one of the parts. Give me a break and get the history right! (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The current wikipedias definition of holiday is:- ..., in the English-speaking world, a day designated as having special significance for which individuals, a government, or a religious group have deemed that observation is warranted. individuals observe the day by exchanging tokens, thus, by that definition, it IS a holiday, even if not a day off of work. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Chaucer's Love Birds

I'm new, please forgive. Chaucer section's first sentence is in direct contradiction to its last paragraph. Would recommend overall editing for neutrality and clarity. I'm not an expert on the topic, but felt the question should be raised. Thanks. Writpurple (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Chaucer's section has internal errors as well. Chaucer's writing says "For this was on seynt Volantynys day" and then mistranslates it as "For this was sent on Valentine's Day". The fact is that what Chaucer wrote is "For this was on Saint Valentine's Day" as plain as day unless you skim over the archaeyic spellynges and thus don't notice the word order. Since the Bishop from Genoa mentioned was not canonised, clearly this was not "his" day. Moreover, the argument that birds would not have been coming to chase their makes in February is false. "Choose their mate" is also a mistranslation, as the "k" is not a "t" regardless, and the sentence is poetically phrased to describe birds chasing about one another of the same type, and therefore doesn't not necessarily refer to mating season but merely flocks arriving back in the spring from a migratory pattern. And although England is not the warmest place in February now, it was fairly confortable during the Medieval warm period.
But since this is all obvious, I can't correct the article because I have to say someone else said it to post it here since you can't say "apples are often red" without a bloody citation here. Wikifail. (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Quite right. Recently inserted mistranslation has been fixed. Thanks for noticing. --Wetman (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Valentine's Day in Iran

Greetings, fellow Wikipedians

Let's be straight out frank: There is a definite dispute amongst us all about Valentine's Day in Iran. The current version, as of this time, under "Conflict with religious fundamentalists", "The Middle East", states:

1. Valentine's Day is celebrated in Iran!

2. Government attempts disruptive intervention!

3. Young Iranians openly perform what seemingly corresponds to some Valentine traditions.

Unfortunately, these allegations seem to be flawed. I invite you all to help resolve this dispute in order to keep the article as required by Wikipedia rules and best practices.

The flaws in these allegations, from my point view, include:

1. Lack of any or a credible source

Admittedly, this is the only flaw to which you need to heed. Until recently, none of the statements above were sourced. Just recently, ChildOfMidnight attempted to add a single source (Forbes) for all above. Unfortunately, the aforementioned sources but poorly testifies statement three. Furthermore, it is partly based on a POV quotation and it is so new that is suspected of being fabricated. (No offense nor accusation is meant to ChildOfMidnight.) I'm afraid people, we need more sources and concrete sources.

2. Contradictions with common teachings

I believe everyone knows that in the general view of the public in the United States and much of Europe, Iranian people are considered "Dangerous Overzealous Muslims" and do not practice what others do, especially anything related to cupid. Furthermore, we all know that Iranians use their own exclusive calender which does not correspond the world standard. They would not attend a Christian tradition based on an alien calender.

3. Contradictions with what I witness whenever I am in Iran

I have been in Iran a lot. And even right now, I actually am. Iranians, especially in Tehran, are strange people but no one there seems to know anything about Valentine. Yes, I do often witness a miserable imitation of the west in cases of dating, relationship and affairs. But I see no Valentine. The only ones who know something about Valentine are rare people who have either read a dictionary/encyclopedia or some young people who perhaps have played Final Fantasy VII or Dirge of Cerberus and know Vincent's family name is Valentine.

Regardless of all this, Wikipedia requires verifiability. Flaw #1 must be dealt with.Fleet Command (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is a bit general, but it does suggest that western traditions related to Valentine's day are catching on in Iran [1]. Perhaps you can find a source about restrictions to add balance? I think the article mentions restrictions on hand holding (although it also mentions signs of resistance like kissing in public). The article is from 2005. Are you arguing that some of Iran's youth, particularly in urban areas, aren't becoming more "liberated" as far as social mores? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid ChildofMidnight, here, we are talking about a serious tradition and trend. The source which you introduced only alludes to a vague co-incidential similarity. Yes, it is serious about an imitation from the west but not Valentine's Day. Iranians don't even know when in the year the Valentine Day is.
Let's not make a political matter out of this here in Wikipedia. I suggest we wait until someone find a non-POV trustworthy source about a this that clearly states Iranians' wish to have cupid balloons in air in a certain fixed day of the year. After one month, if no one could, we'll erase this whole section about Iranians. (Don't worry, I'll bet they'll be happy instead of being sad about it.) If you like, you can add information about Iran in a romance topic. By the way, the article is not "from 2005". It's dated Feb 11, 2009. Oh, and don't worry about Iranians being allowed to hold hand or not. That's their problem not Wikipedia's. I'm sure the fact that their population IS growing is suggestive enough. ;) Fleet Command (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It also appeared on Forbes[2]. AP carried on January a different story that also says that young people celebrate Valentin This book "Social change in Iran" also says that it's celebrated [3] the book "Muslims Around the World Today" says something about a 2006 PBS report [4] this book "Hiphenated indenties" also mentions young people celebrating Valentine[5] book "Making Islam Democratic" from Stanford University Press says that "The popularity of Valentine's Day testified to the widespread practive of 'forbidden love' and relationships, in which sex, it seemed, was not excluded" [6] NPR also says that Valentin has grown in popularity in Teheran, buying perfumes, chocolates, shops are decorated, and that the government is crashing down on young couples that are holding hands, etc[7] (audio source). Can someone add these source to the article?
P.D.: It might perfectly be that all of this applies only to Teheran and not to the rural areas in Iran --Enric Naval (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, same applies to all these sources: They testify about something related to relationship and courtship practices in Iran and around the world, but do not explicitly state anything that confirm any of the three allegations mentioned about Valentine's Day. They claim something different. By all means write these in a proper relationship-related article in Wikipedia, but not here in Valentine Day's. If Iranians have a similar day to Valentine, link to its article in this page.
Objections to each source introduced is as follows:
(7) Valentine's Day Around The World, Forbes: Same as the one ChildOfMidnight provided. Explained above
(8) Social Changes In Iran, Google Books: Weakest source. Speaks about a small population who were in relationship. No evidence of Valentine traditions is given and does not apply to a whole populace. Even the word Valentine itself is perhaps a word used to allude to some western traditions.
(9) Muslem Around The World Today, Google Books: The strongest source. It quotes PBS' Frontline. If you can find the main article, your problem is solved.
(10) Hyphenated Identities, Google Books: Verification failed.
(11) Making Islam Democratic, Google Books: It is only about the practice of illegal affairs in Iran. What is said about Valentine is only a general statement, not even about Iran.
(12) Valentine's Day in Iran, NPR: Again, there is only an allusion to Valentine. It only refers to people buying items used for romantic purposes and some suspicious assault-related arrests. It only poorly confirms main allegation #3. Also does not applies to Iran in general. It is full of "What do you think...?" answers.
I don't know why, but all my life I've heard from all the world news agencies that there is no freedom in Iran and Iranian are zealous Muslims. But, all of a sudden, some of you insist that there is a Christian tradition amongst those zealous? Fleet Command (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree at all with your assesment of any of those sources. In particular for "Social change in Iran"[8] it's totally ludicruous to say that the word "Valentine" there could be not referring to Valentine's Day. The other assessments are equally off the mark. There are several sources of different origins saying that the holiday is catching among the iranian youth[9][10]. Mind you, they support mostly sentence 3 only. Sentences 1 and 2 need to be re-worded to something like "Despite not being an official holiday, shops in Teheran offer heart-shaped gifts." --Enric Naval (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
First, shops in Iran always sell heart-shaped confectionery all the year. Iranians are excellent at making every kind of sweet edible things. Besides, Iranians, like most of the world, recognize heart as a generic symbol of love not just romantic love. Heart-shaped things are sold all the year.
Second, "Social change in Iran" is not credible because it does not state a single thing that is only and only done on Valentine's Day. It speaks of a few people having affairs. People can have affair every day in year and that day may or may not be Valentine. But only on Valentine people send a gift to one of their former lover whom they do not contact otherwise. There are lots of things that people do only on Valentine and "Social change in Iran" states none.
Third, do not use Novels as sources for fact.
Fourth, even accepting all your sources for credible and granted and taking all my assessments back, they hardly affirm Allegation 3. They only say: "Occasionally, some exceptional Iranians who happened to know about Valentine attempted to imitate westerners in that day." Iranian calenders have no Valentine Day in them and Iranian hardly know when Valentine is.
Fifth, I'm not saying you are wrong or the fact is something else. I'm saying your sources are not suitable for Wikipedia. Bring a documentary source and be done with it.Fleet Command (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)No, what sources say is, for example:

ANSWER: This is regional. No country-wide conclusion can be made. Fleet Command (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER: They like to do this all the year, not only on Valentine.
ANSWER: Duplicate source. Discussed above.

So, no, sorry, but I can't agree with you. None of the sources say that it's celebrated just "some exceptional Iranians", they do say very clearly that shops prepare products specifically for the event, they do say that it's being celebrated in spite of being officially banned by the government, and they say it has become a huge event on the last years. The situation seems to have changed quite a bit since your last visit there, the NPR source says that it started around 2000 (it said 2 or 4 years ago back in 2004).

ANSWER: Oh, yeah. They say nothing exclusive. Shops are always like this in Iran. Fleet Command (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally, if you think that these sources are not adequate, then bring them to WP:RSN to dispute them, I see them as perfectly good published sources reporting what is happening currently in Iran in Valentine's Day and how the situation has evolved. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER: I do not say sources are irreliable. I say they are insufficient to affirm any of the three allegations. Anyway, what is this mysterious affinity you have with Iranians that drives you to jump to big conclusions based on an allusion? Fleet Command (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No affinity, just sources. Also, I just discovered 5 minutse ago how to search the Google News archive :) Lotsa a sources of a 2003 crackdown on shops, ordered to remove heart-shapped stuff that was prepared for Valentine's Day.

A Washington Post article reports that they had been long celebrating Valentine's Day in "satin-hearted American style", but that in 2005 with the Iraq war the Iranians started hating the US and abandoning Western traditions, but that this feeling has passed and it was in 2008 back to levels in 2001 when they loved the US.

In 2006 this lack of love for the US is reported by another newspaper:

It's not just occidentals newspapers that say this, it's also iranian websites that are reporting also the same thing, see this example from

As I said also above, I have shown multiple reliable and non-reliable sources describing the same thing and being coherent about them on how the phenomena evolved over time, while you have shown no source saying otherwise, you have only expressed your personal opinion on the matter. (and you are right in that this seems to be regional and not national, this is all reports about Teheran and none about rural zones) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot help but esteem your vehemence and rigor with which you research on the matter. Very well, Enric Naval. Let us come to a conclusion and a compromise then. Despite that fact I still believe these sources show nothing that is exclusive to Valentine, I understand that people do not expect it to be so, regardless of whether I do or I do not. And, yes, you included too, dear Wikipedian. :)
So let us add what these sources claim to the article and abandon the rest of the allegations. Note that Wikipedia and I do not care about whether the truth is being told or not. (That is Iranian's own problem.) I only care about the verifiability. In that respect, I could upload a scanned copy of an Iranian calender, (which is public domain) showing that Valentine is not an official day. I can also translate it to English. But doing this would be original research as well as suspected forgery of evidence. (Yes, how can you be sure I translated it with honesty?) However, I can submit you a copy of the original calender in high resolution (so you can be sure I didn't Photoshoped it) and you can circle around the day that Iranians hold as Valentine. (Although, you will find no such a day.) The result can be uploaded as a proof of the statement One. Just introduce a method of communication.
So, do you agree to replace the paragraph with the following, based on sources you have found?:


By the way: Why do you keep saying "rural parts"? Iran has a lot more cities than Tehran.Fleet Command (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that it's official. The whole pointis that it's celebrated by young people despite opposition from government and clerics.
yep, it should be "rural parts and cities other than Teheran" or, rather, mentioning only Teheran.
That wording... "there have been numerous reports" is unnecessary attribution that is giving the impression that it's not an extended phenomen. That "of course" seems to be, hum, I can't put my finger on what is exactly wrong with it, but it's asuming some POV or other. The police intervention was back in 2003, it seems that it wasn't repeated in later years despite the same behaviour being done by people, so it was obviously motivated by something else (probably a reaction to Iraq's invasion).
I'll think I'll just go and write up something to replace the current text... --Enric Naval (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Some minor clarifications:
Well, actually, somebody did say that it is official RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE. But OK, if we don't have conflict in unofficialness, I like saving myself the trouble. (I'll keep that Calendar just in case.)
I agree with removing, ", of course, ". However, the other statement, "here have been numerous reports", is actually chosen carefully. Numerous means "a lot". And numerous reports implies the fact that these reports, which we are quoting, aren't Iranian. (They aren't, are they?) I added it so that we -- not just me and you -- do not have any further editing wars. Just check the edit history and you'll know what I mean. About the police intervention, one of your sources that reported was dated around February 2009. Regardless, your sources DO REPORT police intervention and my wording doesn't indicate a date. Now, don't take me wrong. I don't mean "the wording must absolutely not change". You are more than welcome to go ahead an suggest a full statement!
I also chose the wording of "Tehran and other parts" carefully. You see, your sources mainly manuver on Tehran and do not say a single word about rural parts. I don't even remember reading the name of another major urban parts like Esfahan (or Isfahan?), Shiraz or Tabriz.
And please, don't go change before we come to an agreement. Come on, write your suggestion here man. Let everybody else too. I know, we interpret these sources so differently, but we are not fighting; we are just discussing. We agree, then we change. That part can be there a bit longer.Fleet Command (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
No. There is no need to attribute to "numerous reports" when not a single source has been presented contradicting them. That the sources are iranian is irrelevant unless it can be shown that it makes any difference (and the sources quoted iranian people and reporters living in Teheran, so it's not as if they are not based on knowledge of the Iran zone). I'll write some stuff that can be verified on the sources, as wikipedia is intended to be, per the verifiability policy. This discussion is good and all, and it has helped shape the matter and clarify it, but at some point enough relevant sources have been presented and it's better just to use them to write the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Iranian sources are not reporting it IS releveant due to Wikipedia NPOV policy. The fact that something exist somewhere and the people responsible for it either do not officially acknowledge it or officially deny it makes newspapers frontpage reports everyday. In that respect, all your quoting sources are anti-Iranian sources. Iran and U.S. are in cold war and both sides write the worst things about one another. But in Wikipedia, we must stay neutral. So, "numerous reports" is required because otherwise the paragraph will be POV, violating NPOV Policy. (Just tell me whichever above you don't believe and I will flood you with sources.)
Why don't you post here your suggestion of the paragraph?Fleet Command (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe iranian newspapers haven't reported it because Iran is a islamic republic since the Iranian Revolution? You know, with the press controlled by the Church whatever the Church is called in Islam. You know, with no Freedom of press (at least, no freedom in practice). Or maybe because I can't read iranian so I can't search for those sources? :P How about you go to the Google News archive search and dig out some iranian newspaper articles about Valentine's Day?
And I won't rebate the "there are no iranian sources" thing again: those sources are interviewing a filmmaker that is "an Iranian-American reporter and documentary filmmaker working in the Middle East. Born in the United States, she moved to Iran at a young age and spent most of her formative years there. Fluent in Arabic and Farsi."[20], several shopkeepers in Iran, a reporter living in Iran, they have accounts from reporters on the field, the author of "Social change in Iran" is a "Iranian-born American citizen"[21], is an iranian community website, one of the books making a passing mention for Valentine's Day popularity was from iranian born and educated Asef Bayat, etc. Saying that they are "anti-Iranian" sources is plain mistaken. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, dear friend, keep that political propaganda out of Wikipieda. Here, you must be NPOV. Here, if a filmmakers says "There is Valentine in and so" then you are only allowed to write "The so-called filmmaker says 'There is Valentine in and so'" not "There is inarguably Valentine in and so". Here, if Iranian sources remain silence, you are not allowed to jump to your own conclusion and say "OK, the hell that they say nothing, they are forcefully surpressed" because this your own POV. Remember: Verifiability, no original research and NPOV.

Now, if you don't like my dictation and wording, that's another matter. For the thrid time: You and all other are welcome to suggest a paragraph. So suggest one! Please do!Fleet Command (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

About iranians not knowing about Saint Valentine because it's not mentioned in newspaper, I finally found a couple news pieces from an iranian newspaper, the Iran Daily, from the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA):
The (a website for iranians living in the US), has a 2009 CNN video on their website [24], which includes shots of shops in Teheran and interviews to iranians in the street.
Daniel Pipes covers Iran in his blog, in the context of the same thing happening in other muslim countries:
--Enric Naval (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Stay on the topic of our discussion: The three allegations! Let me reiterate:
All that your sources (including the new ones,) state is that in Iran, (1) there are some people who enjoy porn and extramarrital affairs, (2) there are laws against them and (3) there are people against such laws! Then, they introduce observation of such people in Valentine's Day and conclude that in Iran, (1) some people, in addition to having affairs and consuming porn, are also faithful to the concept of the Valentine and (2) their government and laws are against these concepts.
Until now, that's OK -- I don't care whether your source tell the truth of not. All I (and Wikipedia rules) care is that what your sources say must be written in an NPOV manner. What's currently written in the article is outright POV -- an interpretation of the original writer:
It says "Valentine's Day is currently celebrated in Iran" whereas your sources report only isolated local events such as people engaging in romantic activities and having affairs on that day without mentioning any nation-wide event. So, instead of that it better to be faithful to your sources and say: "there have been numerous reports about Iranian's tendency towards Western traditions [~snip~] including Western styles of dating and relationship."
It says "despite some restrictions made by government" whereas your sources report rigid legal bans against public indecency being in effect. If it is legally banned, then their government by all means has the right to put up an effort to stop it; thus government's actions are by no means offensive or illegal. (Yes, you can say they don't have freedom in Iran, but regardless of whether it is true or false and good or bad, it is POV and probably unverifiable.) So it is better to say: "Such practices often conflict with standing Iranian laws and Islamic protocols and have caused police intervention."
It says "Young Iranians are seen on this... [~snip~]", which is an example of use of weasel words. In contrast, your sources all speak mainly about Tehran. Two of them mention other places. So it is better to say "in Tehran and parts of Iran". Has it not been for these two sources, we couldn't use "parts of Iran" per WP:WWA.
Now, I suggested a replacement paragraph. I asked you several times to suggest a replacement paragraph. But you simply refuse to show a sign of coming to a conclusion. You neither accept my replacement paragraph nor suggest one of your own. What should I do now? Break the rule of honor and disregard a fellow Wikipedian? Fleet Command (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I love u mom.I love you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest this whole thing about Iran be put under Iran, Customs and Cultures. I'm not sure this discussion deserves the resources it has taken, and NPR shouldn't be guiding Wiki discussions anyway. (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Guatemala's name for it

It is stated that in Mexico, EL Salvador and Guatemala it is called "el dia del Amor y la Amistad" and that is not the case. I don't know about the first two but in Guatemala it is called "Dia del Cariño".

I changed it. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Sepandarmazgan has nothing to do with Valentine, this should be removed. 8digits (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have clarified that it's a different holiday with different origins.
By the way, I see that someone already complained in 2009 about this exact same problem. Sorry for not noticing at that time. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


"Unlike western countries, gifts such as candies, flowers, or dinner dates are uncommon."

Really? Any proof of this? This certainly doesn't hold up in Tokyo, where flower shops are routinely sold out and restaurants and hotels are booked solid. Perhaps the source for the Japan section should be updated as there just might have been some changes here in the 12 years since the book was published. (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I added two sources for parts of that statement, one is from 2007 and the other from 2009. You need to find reliable sources for the statements and place them in the article or place them here for discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Classic Wikipedia rubbish

This article is US-centric and misleading. (Or just plain wrong.) In Australia (where we do speak English), nobody would call Valentines Day a holiday. Many of my (somewhat senior) generation see it as a cynical commercial opportunity for retailers of flowers, cards, and newspaper classifieds to sell their wares. With the article written in such supportive, mushy language, it has ended up stupidly POV and US biased.

Will anybody be unhappy with me moderating the article in the direction I believe it needs to go? HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It can't be based on the opinions of Australians you happened to have met, but on published articles and books. If you confine yourself to the universe of published material on this subject, I suspect you'll find that the "I hate Valentine's Day" POV is a marginal one. Perhaps there is survey data on this subject that can be included. Kauffner (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
How on earth can I find a reference that says Australians don't call Valentines Day a holiday? It's absolutely true, and so obvious to all Australians that no Australian is going to write such an article. There would be no point. It's like asking for there to be a reference that says most Americans don't celebrate Australia Day. You're asking me to prove a negative. I think the article needs to prove its claim on a global scale, or restrict the claim to those places the references refer to, at least by geographical implication.
Purely by coincidence there is a survey published today[1] that supports my point about the cynicism of many Australians towards the day. When I get time I'll compose some words that use that data. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
As I've posted above, The current wikipedia definition of holiday suggests that it IS a holiday, even if not a day off of work. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the usage in this article is consistent with holiday. Doesn't make it right. I guess the primary problem is with the latter article, but this one needs to be fixed too. There are far too many articles in Wikipedia written, initially in good faith I'm sure, from a geographically narrow linguistic perspective but using terminology as if the usage is global. English is a very diverse and dispersed language. We all have to be careful because of that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly the holiday article is pretty much reference-less. As an australian I can confirm this article reads incorrectly to me - a holiday is a day where people officially take time off work, and as such Valentine's day does not qualify. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The same is true in the United Kingdom. No-one would call Valentine's day a "holiday", unless the government declared it a public holiday (which it isn't). Francis Davey (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now posted this issue in the Talk page of the Holiday article where, interestingly, it had already been raised some time ago. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone change the bit that says it was established in 496 AD to say it was established in AD 496. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the policy at WP:ERA, it is acceptable style to place "AD" either before or after the year. I think it fits better after the year in this context. — CIS (talk | stalk) 16:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Japan section

In the section on Japan, I'm seeing "Men are expected to return gifts that are at least two or three more valuable than the gifts received in Valentine's Day." I'm assuming that means two or three times more valuable? I'd fix it, but the article is locked. (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting it. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the statement "The custom that only women give chocolates to men appears to have originated from the typo of a chocolate company executive in the initial campaigns."[49] does the source really count as a reliable source for this? The source says "The main difference – that only women are to bear the burden of gift-giving – is supposedly the result of a translation error made by a chocolate company executive." which just sounds like unsourced hearsay to me. (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The source is a bit so-so, but I couldn't find any better source for the origin of that custom. If someone can find a good source that explains the origin of that custom then please by all means replace it.
I looked right now at the japanese version of the article. I tried to translate it with Google Translator. The relevant bit is "[in 1960] To give gifts on Valentine's Day is not limited to women (...) As mentioned in the previous section, initially, the gift is not limited to chocolate, not even in the form of women to men (...) In the early 1975's, said with feeling give chocolates to men loving women, "Japanese-style Valentine's Day" and take root in society, and customs unique to Japan also appeared." Unfortunately, it doesn't cite any source for that info, it doesn't explain why the customs changed, and I don't know enough Japanese to find a good Japanese source. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Today is valentine's day

The silly box at the top of this page is unencyclopedic and the product of someone who should be using their editing skills to contribute to wikipedia in a more useful way. It is valentines day today in most of the world, but not all of the world. As english is spoken internationally, and therefore this language version of wikipedia will be read worldwide, in different time zones, this could be missleading as well as just plain silly. I will remove the box in about an hour if there are no objections to this. --Tom dl (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  •  Done --Tom dl (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Roman entire section has zero cites, & makes a number of questionable assertions. Needs work by antiquities scholar

Pre-Roman entire section has zero cites, & makes a number of questionable assertions. Needs work by antiquities scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talkcontribs) 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It has no basis in any serious Biblical or Classical scholarship I'm aware of. Pure crackpottery. I have removed it. If the author wants to put it back in, I would request that he discuss it here first before doing so. Ddama (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparent error in ages in citation 23.


A treaty providing for a marriage was signed on May 2, 1381.[23] (When they were married eight months later, he was 13 or 14, and she was 14.)

According to the article on Richard II, he was born on Jan 6, 1367, which would make him 15 on Jan 20, 1382. Likewise, According to the article on Anne of Bohemia, she was born in May of 1366, which would make her also 15 in Jan 1382

Ernies35 (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly May 2 is another Valentine's day if anyone can find anything on it or Valentine's day #3. (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Greet Card Association reference

In the article it is stated that 'The U.S. Greeting Card Association estimates that approximately one billion valentines are sent each year worldwide, making the day the second largest card-sending holiday of the year, behind Christmas.' I've checked their press release [26] and it states that 'When children’s classroom-exchange valentines are included, the Greeting Card Association estimates that approximately 1 billion valentines will be opened in the U.S. in 2010.' So it's not a worldwide figure. Havethecraic (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Havethecraic

I have updated it a bit. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 31 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The poem should say...

Je suis deja d'amour tanné Ma tres douce Valentinée…

—Charles d'Orléans, Rondeau VI, lines 1–2 [26] (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The source does se desja not deja. Although it's from WikiSource so I'm not sure how reliable it is. I can't find anything else though... If you can find a reliable source that supports your version, supply it on this talk page. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
A 1842 copy says "desja" (Les poésies du duc Charles d'Orléans, Charles (d'Orléans), Aimé Louis Champollion-Figeac, publisher J. Belin-Leprieur et C. de Batines, 1842).
Looks like "desja" is a medieval form of "deja". --Enric Naval (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Celebration during Valentine's day has been banned for all Muslims by the Islamic authorities in Malaysia.[2] It is viewed as a Christian tradition and therefore Muslims are not allowed to participate in this perceived attempt to deceive Muslims. The Federal Islamic Development Department (Jakim) is to hold an anti-Valentine campaign to remind Muslims of the dangers of celebrating Valentine. Social ills, for example childbirths out of wedlock, has been partially attributed to Valentine's Day celebrations.

In 2011, Valentine's Day precedes the celebration of Maulidur Rasul, commemorating the birth of Prophet Muhammad,which falls on the following day, thus injecting more urgency in keeping the celebrations on Valentine's Day to the minimum in this predominantly Muslim country.

Other races of non-Muslim faith in the country are not prevented from celebrating Valentine's Day. The Malay race in Malaysia, whom are the predominant race, are Muslims by law.

There are arguments that Valentine's Day is not a Christian celebration contrary to popular belief.[3]

Ceang (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Valentines' Day

Considering that there were multiple Saint Valentines surely this is the correct apostrophe use for the name of the day and for the title of the article. Is this not common sense? (Considering that most people don't use apostrophes correctly I think this will be very hard to back up.) (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we shouldn't invent our own spelling, we should use the spelling that appears in English-language reliable sources. There are cases where some sources use one spelling and other sources use a different spelling; in those cases you have to judge the relative weight of each group of sources. However, looking at a cursory search in google books, all English sources use the singular spelling.. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hulu Day? Is that Vandalism? Should it not say Saint Valentines Day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My birthday is Valentines Day. The end. Valentinesday1986 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

== Attested traditions == is a heading, is not in common usage, and needs explanation or (better) reword

"Attested traditions" is clearly not in common usage. It has, on 2010 Feb 14, only 2,260 Google hits, many linking back to this article.

The term should be replaced with one having meaning to the general reader, or a hyperlink to a Wikipedia article, although: Does a term with only 2,260 hits actually deserve a Wikipedia article?

A quick glance at the meager Google hits suggests "Attested traditions" means religious folklore, as opposed to, e.g., canonical religious writings or history recorded by eyewitnesses. "Attested traditions" can apparently include Islamic, Hindu, Christian, and other sources. Non-canonical writing seems to be implied by the term. c

Edit Request:

The line "There is no evidence on any link between the modern romantic connotations of modern Saint Valentine's Day and the rites of the ancient Roman festival, despite many claims by many authors." That claim seems non-neutral and is contradicted by the article itself which claims that Lupercalia was abolished by the same Pope that started Valentine's Day in the same year and both holidays fall on the same day. These facts alone establish a link. --Peter Wisner (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lupercalia was on February 15.[27] Jacques-Paul Migne suggested that Gelasius substituted Candlemas for Lupercalia. The above sounds like someone has been confused by this theory and mixed it up with Valentine's Day. In the Catholic church, every day of the year is saint somebody-or-other's day. Before Chaucer, Saint Valentine's day was just another Saint's Day, a way for the innumerate to say "February 14" (or May 2). There was no holiday or connection to romance. Kauffner (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The point Peter Wisner makes is still accurate nevertheless. The statement is non-neutral and thus does not conform to Wikipedia standards in the case where definitive fact for *either* side cannot be proven. Some authors make the case for, some against. Some historians (modern or otherwise) can surmise and draw conclusions, but the true state of mind/decisions of people involved cannot truly be known by anyone but the original person/people, anything less is a "best guess". The fact is, the quoted statement uses as proof one article of support but omits other articles that are against his personal opinion. Wikipedia cannot make a factual statement in an area of opinion nor where there is reasonable evidence for both sides in a situation. Wikipedia is supposed to be a storehouse of knowledge and not to be used as propaganda. Both sides and both possibilities must be explained, or at least mentioned FAIRLY and equally if it is to be without bias. (On a side note, stating that the two have no connection just because they are a full day apart is ludicrous reasoning, but then here again, my personal opinion doesn't really matter.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwolfe 73 (talkcontribs) 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake : Othon III de Grandson

This poet fut the first one in the 14th century to write Valentines in French. Charles d'Orléans loved them a lot and introduced them later into the French court. so that all about valentines day!!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a note about Grandson and about other authors contemporary to Chaucer. It is most probable that Chaucer was the first one, and the others were influenced by him, but we can't tell for sure. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Dates of birds mating in southern England (Chaucer's country)

Chaucer's poem refers to 'choosing a mate' and the subsequent comment suggests that May 2 is a more likely date than Feb 14th for this to occur. This suggestion is in conflict with ornithological sources, which indicate that most common birds in England except some summer migrants will have laid eggs by May 2nd. Many could have eggs by the first week of March and some as early as February or even January (e.g. Raven, Blackbird, Tawny owl, Rock dove). When you consider that egg-laying is preceded by nest building, I contend that Feb 14th is a more likely date than May 2nd for Chaucer's intended reference. This is supported by simple observations of current bird behaviour in the English midlands, where a pair of robins is clearly established and bluetits were displaying to each other this weekend (Feb 12th 2011).

I suggest changing this to the effect that some have suggested that Feb 14th is a little early for all british birds to have selected a mate and that May 2nd is another possible contender.

Tumhari maaaaki chut sab chutiyagiri hai — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Orthithological source: Bruce Campbell and James Ferguson-Lees, "Birds' nests", Constable & Company Ltd 1072 ISBN 0 09 458350 1 KiaView (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Chaucer probably talked about the mating of singing birds. Cuckoo and Nightingale. During winter Cuckoos hibernate, and Nightingales migrate away. See, for example, page 130 in [28]. It has long discussions of how birds mating habits were perceived at Chaucer's time. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the correct story of St. Valentine:

The Holy Martyr Saint Valentine (February 14, 270)

The servant of God Valentine was born into a highly educated family, and as a youth he received an excellent education. Then, the Emperor Claudius II commanded that everyone worship the idols of Rome. He also made it illegal for anyone to be a Christian, or even to be friends with a Christian. Valentine was a devout Christian and he refused to offer sacrifices to the pagan idols. Together with many other Christians, he was arrested and imprisoned. Saint Valentine was in prison for a long time, and he became friendly with one of the officers of the guard. The officer’s daughter, Julia, had been born blind, and though she was very bright, with a fine, quick mind, she had difficulty learning. The officer was impressed with Saint Valentine’s excellent education, and also by the clarity of his speech. He arranged to have Julia take lessons with the young prisoner. Saint Valentine taught her history, mathematics, and the sciences. He also taught her about our Savior, Jesus Christ. Julia began to see the world through Valentine’s eyes. She trusted his wisdom and found comfort in his quiet strength. Valentine taught Julia to pray. One day, the maiden asked him, “Valentine, does God really hear our prayers?” “Yes, my dear one. God hears each and every one of them.” “Do you know what I pray for every day?” she continued. “I pray that I might see. I want so very much to see everything you have told me about.” “God does what is best for us if we will only believe in Him,” Valentine said. “I do believe in Him,” Julia cried. “Let us pray together very hard that God will give me my sight.” The two of them prayed together for a long time. Suddenly, there was a bright flash of light that filled the cell. Julia opened her eyes and looked up. “I can see, Valentine, I can see!” “Glory to God,” Valentine exclaimed. They began to pray and thank God. As the Christians in the prison began being taken for trial, it became difficult and then impossible, for Valentine and Julia to see each other. They began to write to one another for they had fallen in love. They shared their love through their letters. Saint Valentine was brought before the imperial judge. He boldly confessed Christ and was sentenced to death. On the eve of his martyrdom, he wrote a long letter to Julia, encouraging her to stay close to Christ and remain strong in the faith. He signed the letter, “From your Valentine.” Saint Valentine was martyred for being a Christian on February 14, A.D. 270. He was buried in an area where many Christian martyrs were laid to rest. Julia planted a pink flowering almond tree on his grave. Saint Valentine became a symbol of deep, abiding friendship and love, perhaps because of the beautiful letters he wrote to Julia which he always signed, “From your Valentine.” It is sad that people often forget to celebrate his memory as a holy martyr who have his life in witness for our Savior, Jesus Christ. Of course, the greatest gift of love he gave Julia was a knowledge of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ. Through his holy prayers, may we also remember that there is no greater gift we can offer to those whom we love than the Gospel of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no source for this story, so it is not suitable for Wikipedia.  Andreas  (T) 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Japanese version

The part about Japan claims that the women-only part originated with a typo. Interesting explanation, but the source was an article that no longer exists. I tried to trace it down, but the organization seems to have dropped that article, even though they still exist at a new URL. Therefore I'm suspicious this was some sort of hoax. Shanen (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2012

Also known as "Single Awareness Day" Kgoogs28 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Keith D (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Valentinsdagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran contradiction

I'm not too familiar with editing on the talk page, but I had to point out that towards the end of the article, there is a really interesting statement about Iran and the relation with the local festival, and then a couple of paragraphs later, there is a paragraph that states that Iran has banned everything to do with Valentines. There are two sources cited, but the links are both dead, and I can find no other reference to this. If untrue, this paragraph could easily be anti-Iranian propaganda. If there are no appropriate refs that can be found, may I please delete the paragraph? (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


I think there should be more information about the celbrtion df valentine day in modern india more than the traditional india. & also about how it is celebrated in sculs and collages of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Hindu" needs to replaced with "citizens"

"but the protesters themselves are middle-class Hindu men " should be changed to "but the protesters themselves are middle-class citizens ".

Often the protesters aren't "Hindus". Living in India and being a Hindu, I can vouch for this. Also it's quite a bit offensive to someone like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VickyBong (talkcontribs) 13:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Parlement of Foules

The quotation from Chaucer's Parlement of Foules has no citation; the quote is from lines 309-10 of the poem. I think these ought to be listed so that people can refer to the poem if they need to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaspid (talkcontribs) 15:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

South Korea and Black Day

Under the "East Asia" headline, and also correlating to the "Jajangmyeon" page, the more correct spelling is 짜장면, not 자장면. While the Romanization may stay the same, again the more correct spelling is jjajangmyeon.

This is such a minor detail, so not urgent. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tohta6 (talkcontribs) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

His name was NOT Saint Valentine's Day. Do you think that the word "day" is in a name? No, I don't think that that is so. I think you should just change the name because his name isn't Saint Valentine's Day. Please just make the change. It is so annoying when people make these mistakes. I dislike it! Just make sure that you make the changes! Geez.


Why didn't add something about Italian San Valentino? Today the couples here exchange gifts, usually flowers(like red roses), fine jewelry or between younger lovers some chocolate(cioccolatini) like the famous "baci perugina", you can find them in every time of the year but on San Valentino they're selled with special boxes just for this occasion. Lovers also spent the night going to eat at some restaurant together, because they offer a special San Valentino Menu also in the most expensive ones. We don't have the use to exchange valentine cards but only if they accompanied a gift. And the gift are usually exchanged between lovers and not with friends, but if you like someone and she/he doesn't know you yet you can send it like an anonymous "valentino". "Do you want to be my valentine?" I hope someone can add some of this things considered interesting enough, also because San Valentino was Italian. Thanks and "Buon San Valentino a tutti" but as you can see if I'm writing at this hour at home I'm nobody valentina for now... Ciao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some history of St Valentines Day

14th February date of death of one of several St Valentines who are remembered by Catholic Christians on this day. One of them lived in Africa and was a martyr decapitated in 270AD. Nothing else is known of him. At some time, maybe the Middle Ages, it was claimed that on the day of his death the birds began to mate. The Tridentine Calendar (Pope Pious V, 1586) lists only one St Valentine's Day, 14 Feb. There could have been several different ones for the different saints before then. (ref Wikipedia and Catholic Encyclopedia online

Agape love-feast was introduced into Christianity pretty early, and is mentioned in New Testament letters of Paul. It was supposed to be a feast of “spiritual love”, akin to eucharist. However, within a century or so it fell into disrepute and was eventually banned by the Church in Rome, as some Christian groups were giving it a more earthly interpretation and included elements such as drunkenness, fornication and luxurious meals.

By the Middle Ages (11th century) there were Valentine Clubs in southern France. Their activities were satanic. The Christian Church opposed these heretical customs and executed anyone they found exercising them. The valentine ceremonies bore some resemblence to rites that were practised by some cults of Hindus in India, indulging in the “Five Forbidden Things”. For many centuries there has been a flow of customs and information between the West (Europe) and the East (Persia, India). The satanic practices may have originated with other Gnostic features/customs, maybe some sort of spiritual marriage between Valentinian Gnostics of 2nd to 4th century Alexandra (Valentinus the founder fl. 137-166AD). However, these European events were orgiastic, that is relating to the Satanic path of Christianity, and a heresy, rather than monastic religious form.(ref- The Masks of God:Creative Mythology, Joseph Campbell, Penguin 1968). An example of people who celebrated these feasts in February were the troubadours who roamed in southeastern Europe from 11th to 13th centuries. (The Troubadours, John Rutherford, 1861- available online). AuntFred (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Claim in Introductory Paragraph about 15th-c. Greeting cards

The source to which footnote 3 refers is a) not very reputable ( Comeon!) and b) it states that it "legend has it" that one (1) Valentine's card was sent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Focus of article

I think there is too much focus on the "religious" aspect of the holiday, especially in the opening. Valentine's has been a purely romantic holiday for a such long time that I suspect few readers are aware that there even is a religious aspect. The claim that Pope Gelasius cannonized Valentine is the sort of nonsense you might find in a children's book on this topic. Gelasius was the pope who banned Lupercalia. As the "Attested traditions" section explains, there is no reason to connect this to Valentine. Kauffner (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lupercalia - The Lupercalia reference is probably totally irrelevant to Valentines Day. Lupercalia was celebrated 15 February, but was a "purification" ceremony, nothing to do with romantic love. Lupercalia was incorporated into the Christian calendar as "purification of the Virgin Mary" by Gelasius in 494AD. (everymans Encyclopedia). This occurs earlier in February - certainly appears unrelated to romance.

The St Valentine referred to in Parliament of Foules could well be Valentine of Genoa,(2 May). A poet would surely spot the coincidence of two St Valentines, and could be making a pun of sorts. AuntFred (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely correct. Cannonizations didn't start until the 12th century. I tried to rewrite.
There are lots of Saint Valentines, in different dates! The 14th February ones are "Valentine of Rome" and "Valentine of Terni". We don't even know for sure if they were different persons or if they were really the same person.... --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kauffner - you're quite right, and it ironic that the next two posters didn't even comment on your actual point. Most people commemorating Valentines Day nowadays wouldn't even know the "St" was ever part of the name of the day. The article doesn't reflect that well at all. HiLo48 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012

please delete the section relating Lupercalia after the first sentence, because there appears to be no relationship except the coincidence of dates 14 February or thereabouts, so it is not relevant. The talk page as well as main article agree with this. Leave simply - "There is no evidence of any link between Saint Valentine's Day and the rites of the ancient Roman festival, despite many claims by many authors.[20][14)" AuntFred (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC) AuntFred (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Hungary

The mention of the jar and apostles names is absent from the legends section of our own article on Elizabeth. Whence comes this legend? G. Robert Shiplett 15:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You should make a section for kids so they can understand it better. I was reading this article to my students and I had to explain everything to them! There were some things I didn't even know, so I couldn't explain it to them. Thank you so very much if you take this into consideration and I respect your opinions. Thank you for reading and if you do this then I will come back to the website. My students are watching me type this HAHAHA but please just make it easier for the sake of my students. Thank you!

unreliable source

"Saint Valentine" by Ann Tompert and Kestutis Kasparavicius is a retelling of legends for 6 years old kids. It shouldn't be used to support historical "facts". And it should be phased out in favor of better sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Naval, the information on the book says "The facts of Valentine's life have been lost to history. What survive, however, are legends. And legends often contain the residue of truth. Ann Tompert beautifully weaves together the most enduing stories of Valentine to create a tapestry of the saint's life, while Kestutis Kasparivicius's illustrations take the reader back to ancient Rome." You state that the information shouldn't be used to support historical facts and I agree with you. That's why the information was under the "Legends" heading. The book description says that the author writes about the legends behind the celebration and that's why the material is appropriate in a section on Legends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a book for children. It uncritically repeats the modern version of the legends. In very simplified ways. Without analysis of contemporary historical context. Without the origin of each component of the legends. Without the reasons behind the invention of each version of the legend. It doesn't explain how it has decided between the several versions of the legend. Parts of the legends might have been stripped because they were inappropriate for kids. Boring components may have been removed, abbreviated or adorned. There is no guarantee for factual accuracy, not even for legends. At most, it sources how the legends are explained to kids in modern days. And this is done better by scholar books that analyze the educational roles of legends. Eventually, it should be replaced with sources that are more reliable. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 February 2013

Hello. I would like to request that information about Latvia and Lithuania (In Lithuania and Latvia, it is common...) would be changed if not deleted, because, as I am Latvian citizen, I know that this information is false, completely. Welcome to Shattred's page 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. The content was unsourced, as well as not particularly informative. It can be reinserted, preferably with a bit more detail, if a reliable source is cited. Rivertorch (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2013

In the "Europe" section, please change the following statement:

"For the Jewish tradition, see Israel on other section" to

"For the Jewish tradition, see Israel in the Middle East section"

This will be more helpful in guiding readers to the information, as "other section" is far too vague and there is no section marked "Israel". Thank you. (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks as though the sentence has been removed entirely. I don't think it's needed. Rivertorch (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


I should add that Candlemas is defined as 40 days after the birth of Jesus. This is now celebrated on Christmas, but was earlier on Epiphany (Jan. 6). The claim that this holiday was established to replace Lupercalia is found in many sources. But the fact that it occurs at about the same time as Lupercalia is obviously coincidence. Kauffner (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 February 2013

<Begin request -->The saint missing in the sentence "In the Orthodox church there is another Saint[which?] who protects people who are in love, but for Greeks Valentine's Day is more popular." is Άγιος Υάκινθος (Saint Yakinthos) who is celebrated in the Orthodox Church on July 3. (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is not an absolute "no" response to your request, but I'm not inclined to add uncited text on top of uncited text. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • KuyaBriBri, if this is your approach, you should have treated the request as pointing out a completely unreferenced claim in the article, and removed that. Or you could have taken the opportunity for a quick google search and insert some random result, such as this, substantiating the claim. But in essence you are here telling somebody that you are not inclined to fix the glaring unreferenced statement in the article even if you are being told how it could be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Saint Valentine's Day or Valentine's Day

It would be better if the article title matched the bulk of the text references, including "Saint Valentine's Day, also known as Valentine's Day" or "Valentine's Day, also known as Saint Valentine's Day" (the title should match the first entry) - likewise the infobox.

There seems to have been some previous disagreement about this - [29][30][31][32]. Can we get some consensus as to what the common name is? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Valentine's Week

Someone added Valentine's Week, but I can't find sources that are considered reliable by wikipedia standards. Maybe one day it will become popular, but right now it's only a good idea in a handful of websites. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

a religious address as a reliable source

In reference to this text at the start of Valentine's Day#Legends:

Bishop Demetri of the Orthodox Research Institute states that "St. Valentine was a priest near Rome in about the year 270 A.D, a time when the church was enduring great persecution. His ministry was to help the Christians to escape this persecution, and to provide them the sacraments, such as marriage, which was outlawed by the Roman Empire at that time."[4]

A religious address (a sermon) is not a scholar source. It's based on belief, not on science. It's not a reliable source for historical facts or for the origin of legends. Moreover, it's in contradiction with scholar sources. Reliable sources state that this a legend created in the 5th-6th century. And this sermon presents the legend of St. Valentine as a historical facts, which contradicts the sources in Valentine's_Day#Historical_facts. Including this orthodox source that tries to separate facts from legends.

Moreover, the Orthodox Research Institute does not purport to represent the official position of the Orthodox Church, it only compiles Orthodox documents without any warranty of the correctness of its contents [33]. If the Orthodox Church has an official position about St. Valentine, it should be labeled as such, and sourced from an appropriate reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Naval, the web address you provided states that any religious addresses or other documents published at the Orthodox Research Institute are published "under the Orthodox Research Institute imprint." Also, we are placing this under the section which discusses Legend, as opposed to Historical Facts. Therefore, in my opinion, it's safe to keep the sentence there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The ORI has not "published" this keynote address, it's one of the Orthodox texts that they compile in their website. See their About us page, It's just a resource compiled for the benefit of those "searching to learn more about the Church". See "We welcome the submission of any Orthodox materials (articles, links, sermons, etc.) to be included on the site. In addition, ORI is accepting manuscript submissions to be considered for publication under the Orthodox Research Institute imprint."
The ORI has a catalog with all material published under their imprint, and that address is not listed there.
There are other articles that don't have any note indicating that they are published elsewhere, like [34]. Those articles are listed in their index of articles by author. I assume that those articles have been written directly for the institute. The St. Valentine's article is not in that list. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I get what you're saying. Let's add the fact that the quote is from a keynote address in the article. Good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that this source was still in the article. There are reliable sources that explain how the legend of Valentine was built over the centuries. There is still no need to put a sermon that doesn't claim to have made any historical research on the research, with no guarantee of correctness. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought we went over this last year but fine, you can keep it out of the article. I added something more scholarly in its stead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use a dictionary to source historical facts, they only give brief descriptions that have no guarantee of historical accuracy. Use scholar books that look at the history at depth.
Idem for the book for learning "intermediate Korean".[35]
Idem for sourcing the ring of Saint Valentine to a jewelry website that sell rings[36]. This type of websites will make up any sort of stuff in order to sell.
Idem for restoring the book for kids. And then adding a newspaper article from the "lifestyle" section.[37]. Find a scholar source for the origin of "cutting hearths from parchment", or don't mention it. Can you image what would happen if we mentioned every little embellishment that some author thinks up in a book? We would have an unending list of non-notable embellishments.
Idem for an unsigned article in a personal website[38]
"Your Valentine" in the letter is not the reason that he became associated with love. He became associated because of Chaucer's poems, centuries before this embellishment was added.
Max L. Christensen is "Rector Emeritus of St. James Episcopal Church in San Francisco, California. He wrote the weekly syndicated newspaper column Turning Points, which ran for fourteen years." He doesn't seem to have any scholar titles or anything similar. If he is repeating the legend of the ring, then it's obvious that he makes no checks for accuracy in what he writes.
And you say that Oruch claims, but you don't provide any source of comparable quality that contradicts Oruch. This is adding uncertainty to a statement from a source, without giving any source that shows that the information of the source is less than correct.
Honestly, I reviewed your edits, and I couldn't find anything to salvage. You seem to have the preconceived idea that Valentine was a real priest in Rome. We know from several sources that the story was made up from whole cloth, and based on historical facts. You can't go with a pre-conceived idea, and then try to find sources that fit this idea. We are supposed to reflect the conclusion from the best reliable sources, even if we don't agree with those conclusions. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I am mainly editing the section about “Legends”. In other words, much of this may be mythology surrounding the story of Valentine but this can be included granted that a trustworthy text or website talks about it. Most historians do accept that Valentine existed but acknowledge that very little is known about him. If you are taking the mythicist position, yours is a fringe view. What I added were sentences that were backed by books published from university academic publishers. The legends that I added are appropriate and I have the support to show that. I can definitely add in a sentence from “The Dictionary of Christianity” which is published by Routledge, an academic publisher. There is a difference between using a dictionary on the Christian religion and a dictionary on the English language. The sentences about the amethyst ring that you brought up can also stay. “Heroes and Saints” was the book that I used to back that up and it is published by Westminster John Knox Press, which is also a reputable publisher. It's also corroborated by another text, published by the University of Tennessee Press, which I just added. It is discriminatory of you to disqualify the author, Max L. Christensen because of his position as a rector. Since he is a rector in the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition, he received a Masters in Divinity. Part of this degree includes studying in depth the lives of the saints, etc. which is what this article is discussing. Therefore, there’s no reason for you to remove that. The chapter named “From Your Valentine” in the Integrated Korean text is also appropriate, being published by the University of Hawaii Press. Once again, that sentence states that that’s how Saint Valentine became associated with love—remember Mr. Naval, this is the “Legends” section, not the “Historical Facts” section—it’s just part of the story. I also noticed that you completely removed the text titled “A History of Valentines”, published in 1952 by Studio Publications in association with Crowell. There was no reason to do that and so I am going to add it back again. I will assume that you didn't see it the first time. I understand your concern about the children’s book although the author did legitimately research the topic before writing her book. I will be replacing that book with another university website detailing the same. I am going to remove the Jewelry Website (that was an additional reference I used to back up what Christensen said). Please also keep in mind that I have been trying to accommodate your point of view, and have removed several of my contributions. I ask that you see value in what I am saying too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for switching some of the new sentences to better sources.
Note that the saint was associated for centuries with romantic love before the legend of "From Your Valentine" was even invented!! Not only it's sourced to an inadequate source, but it doesn't even make sense! In source "Chaucer and the Cult of Saint Valentine" in p. 59 it gives this same reason to reject this connection. It also says that the custom of sending "love notes" is based on a lottery started by Christian priests many centuries later.
(Topic apart, in a book for learning Korean or other language, the texts are just learning material, and they make no guarantee of historical accuracy. It is not adequate to source facts to them even if they are from a reputable publisher. Use them for facts about Korean language)
the herron website is a the blog of a school of art and design, and the author is an art student. Let's try something with more reputation for historical accuracy.
The Illustrated Library of the Natural Sciences, Volume 1, 1958, Simon and Schuster has an entry on Amethyst, and the text says "The amethyst is the birthstone for February, and St. Valentine is supposed to have worn an amethyst engraved with a figure of Cupid". Apparently, this is the only mention of Valentine in this whole volume. It would be good to find better sources.
I believe that the first paragraph is overloaded. First paragraph should explain only the origin of the general legend in 13th and 14th centuries. "amethyst ring" and "hearts of parchment" appear to be additional embellishments that were added much latter? Ansgar doesn't mention them at all, I think the first paragraphs should be for the more important legends.
--Enric Naval (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

in popular culture

"In popular culture" sections should explain how the festivity has influenced popular customs.

It shouldn't be a collection of TV programs that have made a St. Valentine's special. There must be hundreds of those. If one TV program was important enough to influence popular culture, then there should be reliable sources explaining this influence. See WP:TRIVIA for some more information of handling lists of trivial things. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the revert you made here this was totally my bad. I was trying to revert vandalism and saw a previous unexplained content removal, I reverted the edit without looking at the actual content. Thanks for fixing this as I agree the show shouldn't be mentioned. NDKilla 03:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014 (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No request made. --NeilN talk to me 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


>> Valentine's Day 'a threat to Muslim values' (Lihaas (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)).


Please, in the section regarding Spain, remove the part of Catalonia, San Jordi has nothing to do with Valentines Day, as the rose/book is a gift to family and friends, not only to lovers. Either that, or you should add many other similar festivities that take place in other regions like Asturias, Valencia, Balearic and Canary Islands, and so on.

 Done --NeilN talk to me 18:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2014

Please add Korea

In Korea, Valentine's day is called Valentine's day and it is celebrated in much the same manner as in the West. Also, there is "White Day" where a month later (3/14) females give male in the same manner as Valentine's day.

Cillment (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Cillment, do you have a source we can cite? --NeilN talk to me 18:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, we already have Valentine's_Day#.C2.A0Republic_of_Korea. --NeilN talk to me 18:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2014


In Lebanon, due to a strong french influence, and the influence of the Maronites, Valentine's Day is celebrated by most people despite their religious background, In much the same way as other western countries. Hasan Kheireddine (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hasan Kheireddine, Do you have a source we can cite? --NeilN talk to me 18:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, I couldn't find impartial, statistical sources, however here are some articles that partially support the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasan Kheireddine (talkcontribs) 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015 (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done No request. --NeilN talk to me 06:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Edition request for Valentine's day in BRAZIL, it needs a correction

Please edit the part where it states that in Brazil there is Valentin's day, there is no suich a thing, it is called DIA DOS NAMORADOS (day of the of those in love, boyfriend/girlfriend) on June 12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

" For Brazil's Dia de São Valentim, see Dia dos Namorados." "In Brazil, the Dia de São Valentim is recognized on June 12." What's the issue? --NeilN talk to me 18:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dia de São Valentim is on February 14 for brazilians, but we just don't celebrate it. Dia dos Namorados (Lover's day) is celebrated on June 12. Please edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Historical facts"

Should this section be rewritten? For example, the skull at the Basilica of Santa Maria in Cosmedin is said to be St Valentine's, or that of one of the St. Valentines. But there is no proof: it is not historical fact. Is it part of the relics at the church of Santa Prassede, transferred later? Elsewhere in the section, a 'head of St Valentine' is referred to, at Winchester. Is this the same St Valentine or a different one, and if so, which?
Reading the article on St Valentine and some of the sources, it seems that almost all the facts are disputed or invented. This section confidently identifies as fact that St Valentine of Rome was a martyr in about 496, but also deals with him as a legend in the next section, where the facts are suggested to be later inventions.
As far as I can see the only historical facts are that certain artefacts were/are believed to be the actual remains of (one or other) St Valentines. (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


valentines day is about love,and care. most people celibrate valentines day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This RfC was closed because nom's withdrawn. –Davey2010Talk 15:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Comments

The question is whether or not the page should be known as Valentine's Day or Saint St Valentine's Day. A previous discussion was held on this page entitled 'Proposed move to "Saint Valentine's Day"'. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 23:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Move - I think that since the day is referred to as "Saint Valentine's Day" throughout the article, it should also be named Saint St Valentine's Day. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 23:30, 12 February 2015
Also, note that this move would bring the article into line with the preferred naming conventions as shown by St. Patrick's Day, St. George's Day, St. Andrew's Day, St. John's Day etc. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 08:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it is now commonly known at Valentine's Day. This is shown in the section covering current customs and practices. --NeilN talk to me 01:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Commonly known as merely 'Valentine's Day' by whom? It seems that only Americans remove 'St' from the name of the day (and depending on to whom you are talking within the US, a Catholic for instance, they also know it as St Valentine's Day or as the Feast of Saint Valentine). It seems toonly be American atheists who don't call it by its proper name. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 08:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Completely incorrect. See Valentine's_Day#Celebration_worldwide. --NeilN talk to me 13:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Valentine's Day is clearly the common name for the celebration. Check this Ngram result for English, and even specifically British English, Valentine's Day still wins out by a wide margin when compared to all Saint-named variants. Crumpled Fire (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Neither of those arguments are remotely convincing. The world-wide celebration is irrelevant because we are determining the English name of the day, not some other language's name for it. Also book results only reveal how common the usage is with the intelligentsia and authors who are typically atheists. To leave out "St" from the name of the article would give undue weight to the views of a very small minority of the anglo-sphere. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 20:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You are aware that English is spoken worldwide, right? Notwithstanding your bizarre atheist assertion, which country's published sources commonly refer it to St. Valentine's Day? --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What's up with your sudden interest in what the published source's say? I thought your argument was about what the masses commonly called it? Arfæst Ealdwrítere 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Given your edits above I realized you might not be an experienced editor and might be unaware that while article content is built using published sources, the same goes for the title, per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." --NeilN talk to me 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Experience has nothing to do with it and does not grant you special authority over me, you should have already known that but I guess power mixed with arrogance gets to even the best of us. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 00:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No idea how you managed to get that I was saying I have special authority over you from "hey, you might not be experienced here so you may not be aware of WP:COMMONNAME". --NeilN talk to me 00:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I withdraw the RfC. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 10:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey, that went down fast. I slept and awoke and the RfC appeared and is no more. So I re-iterate my support of User:Arfæst Ealdwrítere, without doubting NeilN's skilled editing, but for this, the title I still agree with Arfæst and have his (her) argument for it,

"Totally agree. When I came here, I expected the article's first sentence as currently written, laying out all widely recognized forms of the name of the day. However, the English name of the holiday is its name, "Saint Valentine's Day," even in the Infobox, for example (looking at a mis-matched Infobox and title does strain the eyes a bit). I feel that colloquialisms do not belong in an article's title, but are very appropriate and helpful for re-directs (sometimes I think that is why they were born). I was wondering idly if I would make the same proposal when I came across Arfæst's."

Look, NeilN, editors as I ignore all rules, but we have no children: Our nieces and nephews, when I point them to an argument that will elucidate, we expect an educated article covering "Saint Valentine's Day." See? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aladdin Sane (talkcontribs)

@Aladdin Sane: The issue is that there is no policy based reason to change the name. The guideline we follow is WP:COMMONNAME. If you can show that St. Valentine's Day is more prevalent in reliable English-language sources I'll gladly change my !vote. --NeilN talk to me 04:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflict between Valentine's Day and Islam


Why does the article highlight conflict between Valentine's Day and political Islam by creating a separate sub-heading for Islamic countries, when there are several examples noted in the article of non-Islamic political and other groups who are equally opposed to this holiday?

Heading 5, "Conflict with Islamic countries and political parties" needs to be changed to something like "Criticism of Valentine's Day" or "Political Opposition to Valentine's Day", or something similar that does not highlight one specific religion or group. Alternately, content from that section could be merged with country-specific discussions under Section 4.

For example, the article notes under India that both left- and right-wing groups have criticized the holiday. In fact, in the past there have been several incidents where Hindu conservative groups have aggresively and violently attacked both couples and stores associated with this suppposedly anti-Indian, anti-Hindu holiday. No such incidents have been noted in the article. See for a short discussion of some such incidents. Shouldn't we then create a separate sub-heading for "Right-wing Hindu Opposition to Valentine's Day"?

The article also notes that nationalist groups in Romania have criticized the holiday as "Western kitsch" among other things. One could argue that if there is a separate section for "Islamic" opposition, there should be a separate section discussing "Nationalist Opposition" to Valentine's Day.

And doesn't the fact that many Islamic countries oppose Valentine's Day also imply that there is a large population of Muslims within these countries (and all over the world) who are willing to embrace the holiday? Why then call attention to Islamic opposition in particular? This is not at all clear to me.

Perhaps there is a good reason for focusing on Islamic opposition; if so, it needs to be discussed and explained clearly. If not, the article should be edited as suggested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirqadir (talkcontribs) 18:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Look, Samirqadir, when I read your title, I didn't want a headache, which you gave, and a whine to be sure. Your first paragraph pissed me off. But by the second, you had me on your side. You argue well, Samirqadir (just don't start with a whine, OK?). I conclude that section 5 needs to be re-titled, without mention to Islam, to give it the broader character that it seeks, and include non-Islamic arguments against the holiday. Agreed, NeilN? Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I definitely don't own this article so there's no need to check with me. If I specifically disagree or agree with something I'll make a comment. --NeilN talk to me 04:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

There is a statement in here about China: "Valentine's Day on February 14 is not celebrated because it is often too close to the Chinese New Year, which usually falls on either January or February." This is completely invalid, many Chinese celebrate this holiday. I'm located in China and there were many places to buy flowers, and good restaurants/hotels were difficult to place reservations for... as an American, I celebrated it with a Chinese girl I met there. I think we should just remove the statement, it doesn't have a citation anyways. (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done that statement does appear to be original research. -- Orduin Discuss 20:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015

Please let me help you with this page. (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for your offer of help. This template is for requesting specific changes to articles (eg "Please change X to Y"). Stickee (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the place to request additional user rights. You can try and request them at WP:PERM, but the easiest way to get additional user rights is to create an account and become a autoconfirmed user. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Celebration and conflict by country sections arrangement

One thing which would improve the structure would be rearranging these sections but I can't think of anything better. Nor is there in my mind any similar article which I can refer to, this may be the main topic of such a category. The current "Celebrations by country and another Conflict by country" format seems less than ideal. We are forced to repeat a few countries in both those sections.

Various arrangements could be:

  • Celebrations/situation by country
    • Country x
    • Country y
    • Faces opposition
      • Country a
      • Country b


  • Celebrations/situation by country
    • Country x
    • Country y
      • Opposition
    • Country a
      • Ban

Any better ideas? Or is it fine just the way it is? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Done: I have finally clubbed them all together into "Celebration and status by country" and further added continent subheaders. The article structure looks decent enough now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Valentine"

The usage and primary topic of "The Valentine" is under discussion, see Talk:Valentine Richmond History Center -- (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Valentine's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


There is a List of Christmas television episodes and a List of Halloween television specials, how many would there need to be to warrant a split from the section I just made to a List of Valentine's Day television episodes ? I think a lot of series have them. (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Observed by"...Catholic Church somehow missing

Dear all, Saint Valentine's Day is, first of all, celebrated by the Catholic Church (the Saint's official appellative is "Saint Valentine of Rome"). Somehow the infobox is missing this obvious information, can someone add it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Saint Valentine's Day"

Throughout the article, "Saint Valentine's Day" is preferred over "Valentine's Day" therefore I propose that in accordance with the rest of the article the page "Valentine's Day" is moved to "Saint Valentine's Day". I ask an administrator to oblige and to move this page. Arfæst! 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, as it is now commonly known at Valentine's Day. This is shown in the section covering current customs and practices. --NeilN talk to me 05:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, Valentine's Day is the commonly used name. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree. When I came here, I expected the article's first sentence as currently written, laying out all widely recognized forms of the name of the day. However, the English name of the holiday is its name, "Saint Valentine's Day," even in the Infobox, for example (looking at a mis-matched Infobox and title does strain the eyes a bit). I feel that colloquialisms do not belong in an article's title, but are very appropriate and helpful for re-directs (sometimes I think that is why they were born). I was wondering idly if I would make the same proposal when I came across Arfæst's.  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I've changed those to comply with WP:LEADSENTENCE. --NeilN talk to me 21:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal. It is its orginal name, several centuries old. Any other names for it should of course be indicated. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I too agree. If it became more common amongst the general public to all of a sudden write X-mas as opposed to Christmas, that would not change what the correct name for the holiday is. Just because colloquialisms and slang become more popular than the original and correct terms, they should not become the default in an encyclopedia article. Crusadinggoonie (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Most common usage is the one we have. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Eastern Orthodox Church

According to the Typikon of the Great Church of Christ (Τυπικὸν τῆς Μεγάλης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾽Εκκλησίας) and the liturgical calendar (or συναξάριον) Saint Valentine is not venerated nor on July 6 nor on July 30, nor on February 14, because there exit no Saint Valentine (Βαλεντίνος), nor Saint Valentinian or Valentian (Ουαλεντιανός or Ουαλεντίνος) in the Greek Orthodox Church, and all the Orthodox Churches of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The liturgical calendar names all the saints and events commemorated each day of the liturgical year. Here is the liturgical calendar from the official site of the Church of Greece: February 14

July 6

July 30

No Saint Valentine. The official recognition of one as a saint from a denomination or a Church is one thing, and the unofficial “cult” or acknowledgment as a saint from people is another thing. Thus I removed the general “Eastern Orthodox Church”, because officially there is no such Saint in the Greek Orthodox Church, and all the Orthodox Churches that follow the Ecumenical Patriarchate Typikon.

If someone wants to find evidence can add in “Observed by” specifically which Eastern Orthodoxy Churches he /she finds evidence that observes a Saint Valentine's Day (although I doubt that even Churches venerating a Saint Valentine assign and observe a feast day). Wolfymoza (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No critical words on how cruel it is to cut flowers and watch them die ? "

What do withering flowers and deadheads have to do with love ? Some critical thoughts please ! --2003:62:484A:F901:A96B:E894:45F:1E6B (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Valentine's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I deleted this link from the article because it's just a store link. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Questioning This Pages Objectivity

Having read through the 'Connection with romantic love' and 'Lupercalia' subheading I can't help but question who wrote such a poor piece. Within two neighboring paragraphs we have the same exact assertion relying on the same one source yet declares in absolute that 'THERE IS NO EVIDENCE' even though many Catholic churches themselves disagree. It seems to have been swamped by a religious prude insulted at the very thought that what we celebrate today may have links to a more sexual celebration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EssenceOfThought (talkcontribs) 11:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

In the Chaucer quote translation "bryd" is incorrectly "bird" when it should be "bride." See Plentyoflight (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E 03:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

American history

In the section Celebration and status worldwide it says, "Valentine's Day customs[which?] developed in early modern England and spread throughout the Anglosphere in the 19th century."

In fact, St. Valentine's Day was observed by several congregations in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in earliest times. Each congregation was allowed to decide for itself which holidays to celebrate. It was one of Governor John Winthrop's favorite holidays. Here is an excerpt from a letter to his wife back in England:

Thine ever, Jo. Winthrop.

february 14, 1629.

Thou must be my valentine, for none hath challenged me.

Also, if you just spend a few minutes on Google Books, searching by century and picking the option to list the books in chronological order, you can at least get some idea of how many of our "Hallmark holiday" traditions are older than they appear.

Incidentally, this is part of a larger issue involving "invented traditions." Nearly every holiday, rite of passage, etc., has been blown out of proportion by business and industry, which in turn has sparked a backlash. The backlash people invent urban legends that these things only date to the early or mid 20th century, when it's only the overblown version that is so recent. In most cases a toned-down version existed much earlier. For example, diamond engagement rings became popular with the American lower middle class in the 1850s, the same decade that "pink for girls, blue for boys" was imported from France. Unfortunately, we have dozens of articles that repeat the urban legends. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It may well be that some traditions date back a long way, that is not to say that they haven't been appropriated by commercialism and had non-traditional activities artificially added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)